In my area, one government agency covered the entire roof of their building with solar panels. Even on the best day, it can only proved maybe 10-15% of the energy needs. In CT, something like 50% of the power is generated at Millstone II and III, Vermont Yankee produces something like 1/3 of the energy needs of the state.
No way you can shut down these reactors and other coal and natural gas fired plants and replace them with wind and solar and not have massive blackouts.
“The plan, presented recently at the AAAS conference in Chicago, also forms the basis for The Solutions Project nonprofit.”
Anything coming out of Chicago can only lead to leftist ideology or a criminal enterprise. But I repeat myself.
The energy used to build "green technology"
does not break even during it's lifetime.
Yup. Easily affordable as long as costs “necessarily skyrocket” to meet the demand. Proof that the “won” doesn’t always lie.
Agree. The article. Is total bull Obama.
As for that “professor”’, in my classes, we call them poli-sci majors.
“Affordable”
Sure
The global warming debate is over. Deniers to be sent to reeducation centers.
If it were economically feasible and the lowest cost of production ($/kWh), the utility companies would be falling all over themselves to build out solar, wind, and any other technology which passes the economics test. Utilities face these choices constantly as they have to decide to fix/maintain existing capital equipment or replace it, depending upon which option has the lowest cost. Utility profits would go through the roof if the cost of fuel could be eliminated (recall the rush of orders when reactors were first offered on a commercial scale).
Further they never can no matter what happens in the tech.
And the reason is Base Load Power plants have to be on 24/7 They have to produce electricity at a steady load the entire time.
How can that be done with wind, which does not blow all the time at a rate that is reliable, and solar, which does not have a power source for a large chunk of the 24 hour day due to cloud cover and the fact the Sun doesn't shine at night?
NatGas is a fossil fuel.
Maybe these Stanford cheerleaders are referring to the Renewable Grants they will now continue to get for shaking the green pom poms
How are you going to produce electrolysis if you don't combust the natural gas?
- It would take 25% of America’s land to build reliable solar power
- The Kennedys blocked wind power offshore in their Kennedy Compound area
- When I see both solar power and wind power on all of Nancy Pelosi’s non-union vineyards and non-union restaurants and non-union non-minimum wage offshore tunafish processing and canning factories (not financed with federal grants or loans) I will reconsider - wait - add all of Jeb and Bush’s properties and offshore in Florida and California and Texas…. wait - add Maine and…..
I presume they are counting on zero, if not negative, growth?
From the post above:
” . . . where the hydrogen is produced through electrolysis by using natural gas.”
Now if you follow the link, they claim the production of hydrogen will NOT involve natural gas.
Which is not a trivial distinction - without a lot (and I mean a whole lot) of hydrogen, dependence on renewables is a pipe-dream, for a bunch of reasons, not the least of which is the intermittent nature of wind and solar (note to greenies - the power grid will not tolerate interruptions, no matter how noble your intentions).
And if you’re going to generate a boatload of hydrogen by electrolysis, you’re going to have to transduce an incredible amount of energy. You might be able to do that if you ramp up nuclear, but even in the article, it’s clear they frown on that approach. And you might be able to do it by using the chemical energy in methane (natural gas), but how you do that without oxidizing the methane (that is, converting it to evil CO2) is beyond me.
Perhaps the fellow in question has some revolutionary approach to the generation of enormous amounts of energy, but without seeing some details, this stuff looks like unicorn power transmitted by rainbows
These satire sites are getting more and more clever.
Sounds good but not having read the proposal, I wonder how much redundancy and power reserve is included in this study. The big problem we have currently with these 'green' renewables is that they are very subject to interruption, generation is not co-located with usage and power transmission and storage is problematic.
An example as a thought experiment; A hurricane strikes East Coast Florida. Current plants are generally unaffected by weather and all that needs to be repaired are the transmission lines. In 2050, will the wind turbines still be standing? Will the solar cell arrays be replaceable with ready supplies?
What about unicorns? The researchers forgot about harnessing the abundant energy of unicorns.
An excellent opportunity for Obama to pour countless millions of taxpayer dollars down the toilet, as he did with electric cars.
So we are going to give up all forms of powered flight, including space flight? Given current technology, there is no way to put a heavy vehicle into the air without combustion.
And what happened to clean nuclear power? Are we going to transform our nuclear subs into battery powered boats? How about giant sails on our aircraft carriers?(But, of course, the aircraft would now need to be dirigibles.)
The proposal is more of a progressive political fantasy than a statement of serious science.